Richard Dawkins: in defence of scientific truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need Hitchens back

Hitchens, the reporter who did a hit job on Mother Theresa that was refuted in detail by another reporter? And who in his last decade basically did almost nothing new, just self-parody and cruising on his reputation? That Hitchens?

[Anonymous]

First, here's what Dawkins said to The Times magazine, as condensed by the Religion News Service:

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up.”

His reasons for defending the behavior seem to focus on three points. First, that "hysteria" over a fear of pedophilia is overblown by society; second, that instilling a child with fundamentalist religious beliefs is actually a worse way to abuse a child; and third, that he personally overcame childhood sexual abuse, meaning it must not be that big of a deal for anyone else who was subjected to similar behavior.



https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/

Pretty sad he was the victim of a pedophile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unsurprisingly, the Maori part is also a misrepresentation, complaining about Maori schools teaching their own past science and naturalism, and complaining about children being taught about mistakes and misuse of European science.

There has been a lot of upset and discussion about this.

[Anonymous]

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s right. Any so-called “scientist” who thinks there are more than two sexes has no ground to criticize any claims advanced by religion.

+1 it’s ridiculous

Like Niel DeGrasse tyson?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a biologist. With respect to biology, he has become mostly a promoter of neo-religion these days. I am no fan of Dawkins but I think he has accurately pegged the rise of neo-religions as more traditional forms of organized religions weaken. It’s almost impossible to look dispassionately at a lot of the beliefs promulgated by gender ideology and not immediately recognize that ideology as one new form of neo-religious evangelicalism. Dawkins isn’t wrong about the facts of sexual dimorphism but he upsets the new fundamentalists when he talks about those facts. Religions generally dislike facts that conflict with their belief systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s right. Any so-called “scientist” who thinks there are more than two sexes has no ground to criticize any claims advanced by religion.

+1 it’s ridiculous

Like Niel DeGrasse tyson?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a biologist. With respect to biology, he has become mostly a promoter of neo-religion these days. I am no fan of Dawkins but I think he has accurately pegged the rise of neo-religions as more traditional forms of organized religions weaken. It’s almost impossible to look dispassionately at a lot of the beliefs promulgated by gender ideology and not immediately recognize that ideology as one new form of neo-religious evangelicalism. Dawkins isn’t wrong about the facts of sexual dimorphism but he upsets the new fundamentalists when he talks about those facts. Religions generally dislike facts that conflict with their belief systems.

There are no supernatural forces involved so this comparison doesn’t make sense.

Do people vigorously want to defend the rights of vulnerable people from attacks by the POS Republicans? Hells yeah.

Same holds true for women’s rights. Racial inequality. The attacks on our school systems. Etc.

I guess if you can only view the world through a religious lens then you have to fabricate some way of explaining everything to yourself using the concepts you already know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s right. Any so-called “scientist” who thinks there are more than two sexes has no ground to criticize any claims advanced by religion.

+1 it’s ridiculous

Like Niel DeGrasse tyson?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a biologist. With respect to biology, he has become mostly a promoter of neo-religion these days. I am no fan of Dawkins but I think he has accurately pegged the rise of neo-religions as more traditional forms of organized religions weaken. It’s almost impossible to look dispassionately at a lot of the beliefs promulgated by gender ideology and not immediately recognize that ideology as one new form of neo-religious evangelicalism. Dawkins isn’t wrong about the facts of sexual dimorphism but he upsets the new fundamentalists when he talks about those facts. Religions generally dislike facts that conflict with their belief systems.

There are no supernatural forces involved so this comparison doesn’t make sense.

Do people vigorously want to defend the rights of vulnerable people from attacks by the POS Republicans? Hells yeah.

Same holds true for women’s rights. Racial inequality. The attacks on our school systems. Etc.

I guess if you can only view the world through a religious lens then you have to fabricate some way of explaining everything to yourself using the concepts you already know.

Not all religions involve the supernatural. There are major nontheistic religions in the world. If you do not understand this basic fact, you are in no position to accurately and neutrally discuss gender ideology as the neo-religion it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

?? I respect the guy imensely. It's the religious people that don't. Let's be clear about what he was saying. He's drawing a comparison between our western civ. and Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

bullsh*t. He's a respected evolutionary biologist. Thes ate just his opiniions based on facts and science. He's about all we have left since Hitchens passed. God bless you Richard Dawkins. Keep fighting the good fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

bullsh*t. He's a respected evolutionary biologist. Thes ate just his opiniions based on facts and science. He's about all we have left since Hitchens passed. God bless you Richard Dawkins. Keep fighting the good fight.

sorry, "these are".